View Full Version : Bliar is a Jesus botherer
InsaneApache
03-03-2006, 23:05
What to say?
and if you believe in God, it's made by God as well," Mr Blair said.
The mans a menace.
Messiah! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4772142.stm)
Prime Minister Tony Blair says he prayed to God when deciding whether or not to send UK troops to Iraq.
Mr Blair answered "yes"
Well if God told him it was right to make war on Iraq it must have been right:shrug: :sweatdrop:
At least now we know Gods on our side right:2thumbsup: :laugh4:
Byzantine Mercenary
03-03-2006, 23:44
Tony blairs church (the Church of England) was against the war. even the arch bishop protested, god doesn't like wars, whatever happens in them its his children that die.
Kralizec
03-04-2006, 00:36
Well if God told him it was right to make war on Iraq it must have been right:shrug: :sweatdrop:
At least now we know Gods on our side right:2thumbsup: :laugh4:
Well actually president Bush literally claimed that God told him to invade Iraq, so who are we to disagree? :help:
Give Blair a break. If you were a Christian it would be a bit strange not to grapple with a life or death decision like whether to go to war in your prayers. And rather bizarre to think God would not judge you for what you decided.
If I am honest I find it rather disgusting, in my view at least a Labour prime minister should not be consulting God or engaging in wars, simple as that.
That he prayed to God does not mean that God told him to go... He would just as well have asked for guidance.
This is pretty much a pointless arguement because you can't prove if God told anybody anything so if Tony says that than do you believe him or not thats the only question you should ask yourself
Duke of Gloucester
03-04-2006, 09:44
He is not quoted as saying that God told him to invade Iraq. He says that he asked for guidance before making the decision and always had in mind that he would be judged by more than public opinion - that he would face God's judgement as well as the electorate. Both of these are entirely natural for a Christian and he has not disguised the fact he is a Christian, so unless we are saying that Christians should not be Prime Minister we can not object to the article contents. We might be embarrassed by politicians referring to their own faith, but the article suggests that Parky brought the subject up, not Blair.
Rodion Romanovich
03-04-2006, 10:02
I think God has pretty clearly explained to us that he doesn't want this war:
http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444
(warning offensive pictures)
he did say "if", i havnt seen it, but was he reffering to himslef or in general?
He believes in God, so the "if" refers to himself. Bear in mind here, what he was talking about is who will judge his action - other people, God etc - not who told him to do it.
I think God has pretty clearly explained to us that he doesn't want this war:
http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444
(warning offensive pictures)
Awww if god didn't want them naked they would have been born with clothes. All part of the bigger picure mia muca.
Tony blairs church (the Church of England) was against the war. even the arch bishop protested, god doesn't like wars, whatever happens in them its his children that die.
Blair is IIRC a Catholic not a Protestant. In which case although the C. of E. is the, for want of a better term, the state religion it is not his personal church.
Or it may be his wife who is Catholic. I forget, and can't be bothered to check.
Rodion Romanovich
03-04-2006, 15:57
Awww if god didn't want them naked they would have been born with clothes. All part of the bigger picure mia muca.
Yes, so look at the American sinners, who despises the Lord and wear clothes in those pics!
Yes, so look at the American sinners, who despises the Lord and wear clothes in those pics!
You silly, the clothes the Americans on these pictures are wearing were photoshopped so american kids don't get traumatised by frontal nudity ~;)
Rodion Romanovich
03-04-2006, 16:04
As bad as it feels to joke about these things, I must smile at your linguistical creativity ~:)
Banquo's Ghost
03-04-2006, 16:42
Blair is IIRC a Catholic not a Protestant. In which case although the C. of E. is the, for want of a better term, the state religion it is not his personal church.
Or it may be his wife who is Catholic. I forget, and can't be bothered to check.
Mr Blair is currently a member of the Church of England, whereas his wife is a Catholic. However, he does attend mass with her and there was a bit of a constitutional discussion about him actually being accepted into the Church.
As to the original topic, I'm no fan of the Prime Minister, but it's not particularly odd that he should seek guidance for his conscience from his God about sending men to war.
It would have been better if he had sought advice on the ethics of lying to Parliament about the immediacy of the danger, and trusting Parliament to guide him on how to deal with the alleged threat by furnishing it with the intelligence he really had.
Then he might not have had to agonise about sending men to their deaths.
GiantMonkeyMan
03-04-2006, 18:34
i think it went something like this :juggle2: :
parkinson: who do you think will judge you on your decision to go to war with iraq?
bliar: well i think future historians and, if you belive in him as i do, God will judge me for my decision but i prayed before the decision to think of the correct choice to make
so it isn't exactly 'god has guided me to war' and what is wrong with being a christian? i am an athiest but why can't our leaders be religious, what's wong with it?
Strike For The South
03-04-2006, 19:49
This god fellow seems to be part of all the big decsions lately.
I really dont see what the fuss is about. The guy is religious, wouldnt come as much of a shock that he prayed prior to going to war. He was risking thousands of lives, anything to calm ones nerves at that point should be used.
What to say?
Quote:
and if you believe in God, it's made by God as well," Mr Blair said.
The mans a menace.
Would you also be complaining if a budhist prime minister said he meditated before making a major decision that involved your country?:dizzy2:
Red Peasant
03-04-2006, 21:07
Don't worry, it's just reactionary Tories getting all in a lather about an innocent remark by the man they love to hate. The man was just examining his conscience. I'm just surprised that any politician has one!
its something to celebrate :laugh4:
ShadesPanther
03-04-2006, 22:37
I don't really see the fuss about this. He really just said about his conscience and how God will judge him. Same really as any other christian making decisions that affect other people's lives.
At least he didn't say God told him to do it. People would be worried if the leader of a major power with nuclear weapons started hearing voices, divine or not.
A.Saturnus
03-05-2006, 00:50
parkinson: who do you think will judge you on your decision to go to war with iraq?
bliar: well i think future historians and, if you belive in him as i do, God will judge me for my decision but i prayed before the decision to think of the correct choice to make
Well, this is how it should have been:
parkinson: who do you think will judge you on your decision to go to war with iraq?
bliar: thankfully, not the voters
:laugh4:
If you care to read the article, Blair prays for his conscience. Sending people into war is no easy decision, and he needed all of the support he could get. Is believing that there is something out there better than yourself such a crime? It is horrible that people are so scared to admit their faith to the public. Nothing is wrong with being religious. You all are fools.
Tribesman
03-05-2006, 07:11
Mr Blair is currently a member of the Church of England, whereas his wife is a Catholic.
So both his and his wifes churches were against the invasion .
At the time of the invasion he said let history be the judge of his actions in going to war .
Now that history looks like it is going to judge him very badly for the descision , he is delaying the judgement and leaving it till his death .
Now that history looks like it is going to judge him very badly for the descision , he is delaying the judgement and leaving it till his death .
Come on he's merely stating what he did prior to sending thousands of men to their possible graves, to widowing thousands of women, to killing thousands of fathers. He didn't even know at that point that there werent chemical/biological weapons pointed towards his soldiers. What would you have done to calm yourself in order to make the proper decision, one that would resound throughout history as either horribly wrong or completely correct?
Also would you be complaining if he was part of a diyonus cult and he had a drunken orgy prior to making this decision, instead of praying?
Papewaio
03-06-2006, 06:33
WWJD
What Would Judas Do?
Well he would probably have done the same as the AWB... Australian Wheat Board... and spent about $300 000 000 in kickbacks to Saddam even as Australia was about to go to war against him...
What I find most annoying is that he believes that history and God will judge him. This is a belief not uncommon in the less stable of world leaders and not a trait I like to see in the leader of my nation. He doesn't work for history or for God, he works for the nation and its people, and they shall judge him first.
InsaneApache
03-06-2006, 17:04
What I find most annoying is that he believes that history and God will judge him. This is a belief not uncommon in the less stable of world leaders and not a trait I like to see in the leader of my nation. He doesn't work for history or for God, he works for the nation and its people, and they shall judge him first.
Give that man a cigar!
Exactly how I feel about it. If he feels that God should be his judge, then he should have become a priest, not a politician, ney a leader, of an advanced liberal democracy.
Byzantine Mercenary
03-07-2006, 12:54
Remember, he is one of the very few Anglicans, heck even christians that supported the war
IA - on this rare occasion, we can agree wholeheartedly.
InsaneApache
03-07-2006, 17:07
IA - on this rare occasion, we can agree wholeheartedly.
I don't know wether to be honoured or worried!!!:laugh4:
I'll take it as a compliment. :bow:
Tachikaze
03-07-2006, 19:08
I will preface my view by restating that I am not a Christian and I am emphatically against the invasion of Iraq.
But, I support Blair's choice to pray before making his decision. The main reasons I oppose the war are spiritual, humane, or altruistic, not necessarily practical. If Blair's way to search his conscience was to pray, then he should, rather than coldly making such a terrifying decision based only on logic, pragmatism, or monetary gain.
It's unfortunate that he came to the conclusion that he did, but he searched his soul, and I admire that. I agree, however, with Ms. Gentle when she said that a good Christian would not be for the war. Blair made a serious and fateful mistake. If I may use the Judeo-Christian concept of sin: a man who prays and then sins is still a sinner.
On the other hand, if Bush really did say that God told him to attack Iraq, that is just sickening. Mass murderers and serial killers have used similar justification. Maybe Bush feels he is some kind of prophet or something.
After reading the article, it did not seem that Blair said the same thing.
Tribesman
03-08-2006, 02:05
God replies to Tony http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1725799,00.html
Tachikaze
03-08-2006, 09:20
God replies to Tony http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1725799,00.html
Funny article. I like the line about God's foot.
This is the kind of thing I would normally get angry about. Most of the forumers that I usually agree with and the Guardian are pretty upset with Blair's statement. But i can't see that he really implied that God acquiesced to his decision to invade. Maybe it's because I consider prayer to be a kind of meditation, rather than a conversation with a deity.
Maybe he did want the public to infer God's approval, but it was too vague a statement for me to know.
i think its great that he prayed to god, at least he has some compassion and being vaguely religous must allow him to have an insight into how other religous people feel, there are loads of catholics who thought that the war was right (before it started, im not saying the majority, but certainly some)
Kralizec
03-08-2006, 17:59
What I find most annoying is that he believes that history and God will judge him. This is a belief not uncommon in the less stable of world leaders and not a trait I like to see in the leader of my nation. He doesn't work for history or for God, he works for the nation and its people, and they shall judge him first.
Undemocratic as it may sound...
It's not a statesman's job to do the popular thing after you're elected into your position. You do what you think is right. And you'll face your judgement after a couple of years when the voters will turn again you. Apparently Blair didn't do badly enough, since he's still in office...
Making every decision dependent on the whim of the people will just hamstring the government and make effective governance impossible.
InsaneApache
03-08-2006, 18:16
Apparently Blair didn't do badly enough, since he's still in office....
We didn't have much of a choice. It was either lying Blair and his motley crew of lying liars, a short, fat, ginger Scottish drunkard or an exiled Transylvanian with a hemoglobin fetish. :embarassed:
Tachikaze
03-08-2006, 19:21
Undemocratic as it may sound...
It's not a statesman's job to do the popular thing after you're elected into your position. You do what you think is right. And you'll face your judgement after a couple of years when the voters will turn again you. Apparently Blair didn't do badly enough, since he's still in office...
Making every decision dependent on the whim of the people will just hamstring the government and make effective governance impossible.
It depends on whether you see your politicians as leaders or representatives.
I have seen times when the politicans were acting for the wrong reasons, like to satisfy the shareholders of a small number of powerful oil and construction companies. In that case, I wish they had followed public opinion instead.
Other times, the politician is better educated and wiser than the public and should do what knowledge, experience, humantity, environmental concerns, and morality decide is best.
Generally, a politician is better able to make important political decisions. But the wild card is their ethics or morality. On occasion, they are simply unintelligent.
What little I know of Blair, he seems bright. But his choice to support the Bush Regime was due to moral or ethical problems. In that case, I wish he had been a representative.
It depends on whether you see your politicians as leaders or representatives.
....
What little I know of Blair, he seems bright. But his choice to support the Bush Regime was due to moral or ethical problems. In that case, I wish he had been a representative.
Well, I might share your regret at this particular instance but more generally wars are probably the kinds of decision where politicians should be "leaders" (i.e. do what they think right) rather than "representatives".
If we were talking about what to kinds of public services to provide etc. then I can see a case for giving the people what they want (don't give them opera if they want football stadiums etc). But when talking about moral and especially life and death issues, I would rather they went with their conscience.
Gladstone was one UK politician who famously tried to keep out of foreign wars despite a jingoistic popular mood. The despicable rulers are those who start wars to try to bolster their domestic support (e.g. the Argentine junta in 1982).
Another example of an issue best left to conscience is capital punishment. For some time, Britain's avoided legislating it because MPs have voted by conscience regardless of popular opinion. The idea that US governors decide whether to reprieve people on death row with one eye on re-election is rather repellant, IMO.
Originally posted by Simon Appleton
Well, I might share your regret at this particular instance but more generally wars are probably the kinds of decision where politicians should be "leaders" (i.e. do what they think right) rather than "representatives".
If we were talking about what to kinds of public services to provide etc. then I can see a case for giving the people what they want (don't give them opera if they want football stadiums etc). But when talking about moral and especially life and death issues, I would rather they went with their conscience.
Gladstone was one UK politician who famously tried to keep out of foreign wars despite a jingoistic popular mood. The despicable rulers are those who start wars to try to bolster their domestic support (e.g. the Argentine junta in 1982).
Another example of an issue best left to conscience is capital punishment. For some time, Britain's avoided legislating it because MPs have voted by conscience regardless of popular opinion. The idea that US governors decide whether to reprieve people on death row with one eye on re-election is rather repellant, IMO.
Seems these days in the U.S.A. almost all of the leaders we ellect are looking towards the next ellection when voting. It would be nice if we had some true leaders in congress right now. They might actually get something done. I mean just look at what their doing in there now, trying to slip the port deal into the militarys budget :shame: . IMO its about time we instituted term limits to congressmen. Though considering the law would have to get the law through the same congressmen that would be losing their jobs.
God replies to Tony http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1725799,00.html
When did comedy become so inextricibly linked with politics? There's nothing funny about making a decision to go to war and send people to their deaths. (as in every war) I don't understand why people like Jon Steward have such a strong voice in politics, when all they do is make fun of the system. :wall:
Whether Blair prays or not is beside the point. No deity is responsible for his decisions. He alone is.
Tribesman
03-09-2006, 22:17
When did comedy become so inextricibly linked with politics?
Makkyo , Can you think of a time when comedy wasn't linked to politics ?
It certainly stretches back as far as Greek democracy .
Politics is normally a farce , politicians are a joke , so it is natural material for comedy .
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.